Westcliff Lodge Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met. The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to person-centred care. The service was in breach of this regulation at the last assessment. This meant there was a continued breach of legal regulation.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. At our last inspection we found people’s care records did not always accurately reflect their individual needs and preferences and people were not always encouraged to follow their own interests or take part in social activities. At this assessment we found continued concerns with how well the service supported people to receive person-centred care. People’s care plans contained generalised statements which were not adequately personalised with information about what was important to them. It was not clear how people had been involved in making decisions about how they wanted to receive their care. Observations during the assessment site visit evidenced a lack of meaningful, person-centred activities. People’s daily care notes recorded their task-based support but failed to demonstrate how their care reflected their personalised interests and preferences. Some practices in the service did not demonstrate a personalised approach towards people’s care. For example, people’s personal care was scheduled rather than being offered as and when people preferred.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up and supported continuity. Referrals were made to relevant health professionals when required. Health and social care professionals were generally positive in their feedback about how well staff and managers understood people’s diverse health and care needs.

The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. There was a lack of pictorial and accessible information available to support people’s decision-making.

The service enabled people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People were able to share their views during their regular resident meetings and the service sent an annual satisfaction survey to people and those important to them to enable them to share their experiences. The service was able to demonstrate how they had acted on people’s feedback. For example, making changes to menu options in response to people’s suggestions.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service engaged positively with health and social care professionals to promote good access to services and made adjustments to how they supported people to access these services to ensure equity. For example, arranging visits to the service or appointments at times which suited people and including people’s relatives to provide extra support and reassurance where required.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s human rights and their right to equality. The service worked in partnership with relevant healthcare professionals to identify and meet the needs of people at risk of experiencing inequalities. For example, ensuring the health needs of people living with dementia were met.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People had future planning care plans in place which considered their end of life care wishes. However, some of these only contained generalised statements and did not demonstrate how people had been consulted or involved in the discussions. We spoke with the management team, who told us some people chose not to discuss their future wishes. However, they acknowledged people's care plans were not accurately recording what conversations had taken place or the choices people had made.